Sunday, January 09, 2011

Science, censorship and the media

The Australian Prime Minister gave a speech before the House on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, replayed on the ABC's Science Show, in which she reflected upon the "special place science holds in the fabric of our Australian society".

She emphasised the esteem held for science that places it in company with such noble values as an independent public service and the rule of law, praising science as "one of the fundamental platforms on which we base our conception of a modern advanced society".

"The objectivity and rigour of science are basic to our existence and success as a community of reason ... Science," she said, "has freed humanity from the habits, fears and superstitions of the past."

If only it were true. For if it were true, the science of 9/11 would be admitted by politicians and the mainstream media. The empirical evidence and scientific reasoning that indisputably disprove the official 9/11 conspiracy theory would be well known and widely acknowledged.

The fact is, scientists who research 9/11 (eg. Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, Frank Legge) are censured and ridiculed while their findings are censored and ignored. This fact exposes the absurdity, hypocrisy and conceit implicit in the PM's speech, a speech that merely demonstrates the smarmy superficiality of political exposition.

Scientific analyses of the evidence from the events of 9/11 unequivocally and comprehensively disprove the governments' 9/11 conspiracy theory. Hence, the science of 9/11 is deliberately and systematically censored by government and the mainstream media.

In the absence of informed debate, based on objective and impartial assessment of empirical evidence, an accurate appraisal of the issue is impossible. This is perhaps the intention of those who seek to stifle any mention of the subject.

The censorship of 9/11 is implemented in a variety of ways. The techniques employed can be characterised as either passive or active.

Active censorship entails deliberate attacks and insults directed at any who dare raise the issue in public. This form of censorship relies on scorn, ridicule, derision and intimidation to discredit and discourage open discussion of the subject.

These forms of censorship have become pervasive in the mainstream media and political establishment in relation to 9/11. Nowhere is the issue of 9/11 allowed to be raised in a mature, rational manner. Any attempt to do so meets with hysterical invective and abuse.

A typical example is Jon Feine's failed attempt to ambush Kevin Braken on ABC radio, eloquently deconstructed in this video by Anthony Lawson.

My own correspondence with the ABC, including notable media personalities Phillip Adams and Robin Williams, reveals contempt for any who raise the issue of 9/11 to be rife in the ranks of the ABC.

Similarly, the renowned dissident intellectual, Noam Chomsky, appears unable to deal with the facts surrounding the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Chomsky likes to argue that in any complex event, there'll always be a mass of unexplained phenomena - including, necessarily in the case of 9/11, magic and miracles - an argument that completely precludes the examination of evidence.

It is remarkable that individuals who evince respect for logic and reasoning, can so readily abandon the precepts of scientific rigour and reject the import of fact and evidence when discussing 9/11.

Invariably, these learned individuals attempt to twist the conversation round to make it something about conspiracy theory, which is perhaps because that's all they know about the subject.

They don't know anything about the evidence of molten metal in the rubble of the World Trade Center, they don't know about the sudden, symmetrical free fall of Building 7 or the presence of hi-tech nano-thermite in the dust ... indeed, they're clueless and incurious.

The mainstream media and their armchair intellectuals know only one thing about 9/11 ... it's a conspiracy theory. And if you dare talk about 9/11, you must be a conspiracy theorist, in other words, a kook. Very convenient ... they can dismiss the issue without ever having to address the evidence, the facts of the matter.

However, if you put them on the spot and demand they address the evidence, they very quickly become testy and defensive, and shortly thereafter, refuse to respond, thus relieving themselves of the discomfort of not having a leg to stand on.

It is really quite disturbing to see intellectual celebrities of this calibre, crumble in the face of a few unpleasant facts. And what does it say about the mainstream media and academia, that such intellectual shonkyness is deemed appropriate and acceptable.